Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
(Image source: Wikimedia Commons)
BY EVAN BUSH
In the wake of the Aurora Theater shooting comes the recursive debate that has accompanied
many mass-shooting tragedies-- a divisive take on the nation’s gun laws.
Most notably, this time -- it’s Dianne Feinstein’s big legislative accomplishment: A 10-year
ban on assault rifles, which expired in 2004, that’s getting attention.
MSNBC: “...we talk about, Jonathan, the assault rifle ban weapons ban in 2004...”
WGHP: “...the federal assault weapons ban expired in 2004. Now, some are calling for
it to be reinstated. especially considering the 24-year-old suspect... james holmes, legally
purchased a rifle and a 100-round magazine clip.”
Still, ABC News reports White House press secretary Jay Carney said Friday President
Obama won’t be addressing the law anytime soon.
“The president believes we need to take common sense measures that protect the Second
Amendment rights of Americans while ensuring that those who should not have guns under
existing laws do not get them … We’re making progress in that regard in terms of
improving the volume and quality of information on background checks but I have nothing additional
on that for you.”
What could be holding the president up? Politics, of course. On Fox News Sunday; Feinstein,
the bill’s originally sponsor, said she wanted a “sane” conversation on the ban
but didn’t expect it during a politically-heated election year.
“President Obama and Mr. Romney should make this a part of the conversation. This is a
bad time to brace a new subject.”
Still, some don’t believe timing’s the culprit with this one. An editorial writer
for the Washington Post argues on the Republican line -- it’s the human aspect of gun violence
that’s most troubling.
“In the specific case of Aurora, do we really think that the suspect who allegedly ***-trapped
his apartment to the hilt couldn’t have come up with destructive devices — even
if no gun was available — sufficient to kill many people?”
Whereas The New Republic argues inaction shouldn’t be an option in the wake of a serious public
policy problem.
“...imagine if a politician responded to an act of terrorism the way we are expected
to respond to any mass shooting. If he praised the victims, pledged to bring the perpetrators
to justice, but essentially acknowledged that these kinds of attacks will keep happening
and there’s nothing we can do about it.”